Background: and Purpose The National Brain Biobank of Korea (NBBK) is a brain bank consortium supported by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency and the Korea National Institute of Health, and was launched in 2015 to support research into neurodegenerative disease dementia (NDD). This study aimed to introduce the NBBK and describes clinicopathological correlations based on analyses of data collected from the NBBK. Methods: Four hospital-based brain banks have been established in South Korea: Samsung Medical Center Brain Bank (SMCBB), Seoul National University Hospital Brain Bank (SNUHBB), Pusan National University Hospital Brain Bank (PNUHBB), and Myongji Hospital Brain Bank (MJHBB). Clinical and pathological data were collected from these brain banks using standardized protocols. The prevalence rates of clinical and pathological diagnoses were analyzed in order to characterize the clinicopathological correlations. Results: Between August 2016 and December 2023, 185 brain specimens were collected and pathologically evaluated (SNUHBB: 117; PNUHBB: 27; SMCBB: 34; MJHBB: 7). The age at consent was 70.8±12.6 years, and the age at autopsy was 71.7±12.4 years. The four-most-common clinical diagnoses were Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia (20.0%), idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (15.1%), unspecified dementia (11.9%), and cognitively unimpaired (CU) (11.4%).Most cases of unspecified dementia had a pathological diagnosis of central nervous system (CNS) vasculopathy (31.8%) or AD (31.8%). Remarkably, only 14.2% of CU cases had normal pathological findings. The three-most-common pathological diagnoses were AD (26.5%), CNS vasculopathy (14.1%), and Lewy body disease (13.5%). Conclusions These clinical and neuropathological findings provide a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying NDD in South Korea.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Lecanemab and donanemab have received full U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, and subsequently, lecanemab has been approved by the Korean FDA and it has recently entered commercial use in Korea. This has increased interest in anti-amyloid immunotherapy for Alzheimer’s disease. Anti-amyloid immunotherapy has shown potential to modify the progression of the disease by specifically binding to amyloid β, a key pathological product in Alzheimer’s disease, and eliminating accumulated amyloid plaques in the brain. However, this treatment can be accompanied by a side-effect, amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), which requires periodic monitoring by MRI. It is crucial to detect ARIA and accurately assess the severity by radiology. The role of the radiologist is important in this context, requiring proficiency in basic knowledge of ARIA, and in diagnosing/evaluating ARIA. This review aims to comprehensively cover aspects of ARIA, including its definition, pathophysiology, incidence, risk factors, assessment of severity by radiology, differential diagnosis, and management.

Background and Objectives: The Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular UltrasoundGuided Intervention Strategy for Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Intermediate Stenosis (FLAVOUR) trial demonstrated non-inferiority of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided PCI compared to IVUS-guided PCI in Korea. Methods: A 2-part cost-effectiveness model, composed of a short-term decision tree model and a long-term Markov model, was developed for patients who underwent PCI to treat intermediate stenosis (40% to 70% stenosis by visual estimation on coronary angiography).The lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated from the healthcare system perspective. Transition probabilities were mainly referred from the FLAVOUR trial, and healthcare costs were mainly obtained through analysis of Korean National Health Insurance claims data. Health utilities were mainly obtained from the Seattle Angina Questionnaire responses of FLAVOUR trial participants mapped to EQ-5D. Results: From the Korean healthcare system perspective, the base-case analysis showed that FFR-guided PCI was 2,451 U.S. dollar lower in lifetime healthcare costs and 0.178 higher in QALYs compared to IVUS-guided PCI. FFR-guided PCI remained more likely to be cost-effective over a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusions Based on the results from the FLAVOUR trial, FFR-guided PCI is projected to decrease lifetime healthcare costs and increase QALYs compared with IVUS-guided PCI in intermediate coronary lesion, and it is a dominant strategy in Korea.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Lecanemab and donanemab have received full U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, and subsequently, lecanemab has been approved by the Korean FDA and it has recently entered commercial use in Korea. This has increased interest in anti-amyloid immunotherapy for Alzheimer’s disease. Anti-amyloid immunotherapy has shown potential to modify the progression of the disease by specifically binding to amyloid β, a key pathological product in Alzheimer’s disease, and eliminating accumulated amyloid plaques in the brain. However, this treatment can be accompanied by a side-effect, amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), which requires periodic monitoring by MRI. It is crucial to detect ARIA and accurately assess the severity by radiology. The role of the radiologist is important in this context, requiring proficiency in basic knowledge of ARIA, and in diagnosing/evaluating ARIA. This review aims to comprehensively cover aspects of ARIA, including its definition, pathophysiology, incidence, risk factors, assessment of severity by radiology, differential diagnosis, and management.

Background and Objectives: The Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular UltrasoundGuided Intervention Strategy for Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Intermediate Stenosis (FLAVOUR) trial demonstrated non-inferiority of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided PCI compared to IVUS-guided PCI in Korea. Methods: A 2-part cost-effectiveness model, composed of a short-term decision tree model and a long-term Markov model, was developed for patients who underwent PCI to treat intermediate stenosis (40% to 70% stenosis by visual estimation on coronary angiography).The lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated from the healthcare system perspective. Transition probabilities were mainly referred from the FLAVOUR trial, and healthcare costs were mainly obtained through analysis of Korean National Health Insurance claims data. Health utilities were mainly obtained from the Seattle Angina Questionnaire responses of FLAVOUR trial participants mapped to EQ-5D. Results: From the Korean healthcare system perspective, the base-case analysis showed that FFR-guided PCI was 2,451 U.S. dollar lower in lifetime healthcare costs and 0.178 higher in QALYs compared to IVUS-guided PCI. FFR-guided PCI remained more likely to be cost-effective over a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusions Based on the results from the FLAVOUR trial, FFR-guided PCI is projected to decrease lifetime healthcare costs and increase QALYs compared with IVUS-guided PCI in intermediate coronary lesion, and it is a dominant strategy in Korea.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.